In the Matter of the Complaint of John Consiglio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT of
JOHN CONSIGLIO as Owner of a 1990 38’ Island 	REPORT AND
Packet vessel named “PLANET CLARE” for 	RECOMMENDATION
EXONERATION FROM AND LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY 	CV 25-707 (RER)(ARL)
---------------------------------------------------------------X
LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge:
Presently before this Court, on referral from the Honorable Ramon E. Reyes, Jr, United
States District Judge, is the motion of Petitioner John Consiglio, as Owner of a 1990 38’ Island
Packet vessel named “PLANET CLARE” (“Petitioner”) for a default judgment pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 55 and Rule F of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset
Forfeiture Actions for exoneration by default against any non-appearing parties and non-asserted
claims. See ECF No. 16. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned respectfully
recommends that the motion for default judgment be granted.
BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2025, Petitioner filed a Complaint for Exoneration from or Limitation of
Liability in this Court with respect to all claims arising out of an incident alleged to have
occurred on July 14, 2024. ECF No.1. According to the Complaint, on Sunday, July 14, 2024,
the vessel Planet Clare was upon the navigable waters of the United States, in the vicinity of
Greenport Harbor, Suffolk County, New York and secured to Crabby Jerry’s dock at Claudio’s
Marina, Greenport, New York. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6. The vessel had been secured to Crabby Jerry’s dock
by dockhands from Claudio’s Marina. Id. at ¶ 9. At some point, Hannah Lang, an employee of
Claudio’s Marina, on her own initiative and during her working hours, left her assigned station,
walked over to Crabby Jerry’s dock, and attempted to secure the Planet Clare. Id. at ¶ 13. While
attempting to secure the Planet Clare, Ms. Lang allegedly suffered an injury to her finger. Id. at ¶
Case 2:25-cv-00707-RER-ARL Document 19 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
15. Petitioner has no record of any accidents or incidents aboard the vessel, however, on August
9, 2024, Hannah Lang, through counsel, sent a claim letter to Petitioner. Id. at ¶¶ 25, 26.
On February 27, 2025, the Court “So Ordered” Petitioner’s Order Approving Ad Interim
Stipulation For Value, Directing Issuance of Notice and Enjoining Actions, and which set the
claim bar date of April 28, 2025. The Court further directed the Clerk of the Court to issue a
Notice of Complaint to be served on any party potentially having claims arising out of the July
14, 2024 accident. Id. Accordingly, in a March 20, 2025 Notice of Complaint for Exoneration
from or Limitation of Liability, the Clerk of the Court provided notice that any party having
claims arising out of the July 14, 2024 accident must serve a copy of any such claim on
Petitioner's counsel by April 28, 2025. ECF No. 8. The Notice was published in the Suffolk
County News for four consecutive weeks beginning on March 17, 2025. ECF No. 9. Petitioner's
counsel filed a declaration attesting that he mailed the Notice to "potential claimant Hannah
Lang’s via her counsel [and] [n]o objections from counsel for Hannah Lang were received by
petitioner’s counsel." ECF No. 15, ¶ 7.
Petitioner requested a certificate of default on June 10, 2025, and the clerk’s office
entered default on June 25, 2025. ECF Nos. 11 & 12. Petitioner moved for default judgement on
July 3, 2025. ECF No. 13. On July 7, 2025, the motion was denied without prejudice by Judge
Reyes because Petitioner had failed to comply with: (1) Local Rule 55.2(a)(1)(B) and (C),
establishing through affidavit both compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and
status of the party against whom judgment is sought; and (2) Local Rule 55.2(a)(2), which
requires a memorandum of law to be filed with all motions for default judgment. Petitioner again
moved for a default judgment on July 9, 2025. ECF No. 14. The refiled motion satisfies Fed. R.
Civ. P. 55 as well as Local Rules 7 and 55: Petitioner's motion attaches a certificate of default, a
Case 2:25-cv-00707-RER-ARL Document 19 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
memorandum of law and a proposed order, as well as an affidavit attesting to compliance with
the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act. ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16. The motion for default judgment
was referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation on July 7, 2025.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Standard Governing Default Judgments
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 establishes a two-step process regarding default
judgments. First, the Clerk of the Court enters the party's default. Then, as here, a motion for a
default judgment is made to the district court judge. A default constitutes an admission of all
well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, except those relating to damages. See
Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992); see
also Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. El Norteno Rest. Corp., No. 06-CV-1878, 2007 WL 2891016,
at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2007) ("[A]ll well-pleaded factual allegations in the plaintiff's
complaint pertaining to liability are deemed true"). However, even if a plaintiff's claims are
deemed admitted, a plaintiff must still demonstrate that the allegations set forth in the complaint
state valid claims. See City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 137 (2d
Cir. 2011) (suggesting that "a district court is 'required to determine whether the plaintiff's
allegations establish the defendant's liability as a matter of law'" prior to entering default
judgment) (quoting Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009)) (alterations omitted).
“Courts follow the same default judgment procedure in cases under the Limitation of Liability
Act.” Matter of Scarth, No. 24-cv-872 (ARR)(SIL), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203434, 2024 WL
5320362, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2024) (quoting In re Janssen, No. 20- CV-62373, 2021 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 259091, 2021 WL 8894467, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2021)).
II. 	Limitation of Liability
Case 2:25-cv-00707-RER-ARL Document 19 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The owner of a vessel may seek to limit his liability by commencing an action in a district
court within six months of receiving written notice of a claim related to a marine casualty. 46
U.S.C. § 30501 et seq and Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims
and Asset Forfeiture Actions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; see also Matter of Scarth,
2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203434, at *6, 2024 WL 5320362 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2024) (quoting In
re Germain, 824 F.3d 258, 263-64 (2d Cir. 2016)). "The procedure for a limitation action is
found in Supplemental Rule F." Matter of Nordin, No. 19-cv-25 (SJF)(AYS), 2019 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 165583, 2019 WL 4696318, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2019). “[I]n cases under
[Supplemental Rule F]], default judgment will be entered against any potential claimant who has
failed to respond to notice of a complaint for exoneration from or limitation of liability within the
established notice period, provided that the notice complies with the rules and is: 1) sent to every
person known to have made any claim against the vessel at issue; and 2) published in a
newspaper once a week for four consecutive weeks prior to the date fixed for the filing of
claims.” Matter of Complaint of Wild Florida Airboats, LLC, No. 6:16-cv-2207-Orl-31GJK,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143099, 2017 WL 3891777, at * 3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2017), report and
recommendation adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142932, 2017 WL 3877598 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5,
2017).
Here, Petitioner timely filed this action within six months of its receipt of the claim for injury
made by Hannah Lang. ECF No. 1. Petitioner complied with the requirements of Rule F(4)
based on its publication of the Clerk's Notice for four consecutive weeks in Suffolk County
News prior to the deadline for filing claims, as well as its mailing of the notice to Hannah Lang
via her counsel. Gonzalez Aff. ¶ 7. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule F of the Supplemental
Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims And Asset Forfeiture Actions, and this Court’s
Case 2:25-cv-00707-RER-ARL Document 19 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Order Approving Ad Interim Stipulation For Value, Directing Issuance of Notice and Enjoining
Actions, all claimants having any claim or suit against the Petitioner were required to appear
before this Court and file their claim with the Court, in writing and under oath, and to serve
copies thereof on Petitioner’s counsel, and to answer the allegations of the Complaint, on or
before April 28, 2025, or be defaulted. No claimants, including Hannah Lang, have answered or
made a claim, timely or otherwise. Gonzalez Aff. ¶ 14. These allegations are sufficient to satisfy
the requirements of the Limitation of Liability Act and Supplemental Rule F, and default
judgment is therefore appropriate. See In re Complaint, No. 23 CV 2257 (RER)(LB), 2025 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 28804 2025 WL 977709 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2025) (“petitioner has satisfied the
requirements of Supplemental Rule F as well as Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 and is entitled to a default
judgment and exoneration against potential claimants”); Matter of D'Ancona, No. 19 Civ. 5492
(EK)(VMS), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99099, 2021 WL 4482615, at 3 (E.D.N.Y. May 24, 2021)
(recommending entry of a default judgment and exoneration pursuant to Supplemental Rule F
after petitioner complied with the statutory notice requirements); In re Nordin, 19 Civ. 25 (SJF)
(AYS), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165583, 2019 WL 4696318, at *3 (default judgment and
limitation entered against any potential claimants who had not filed claims by the deadline under
Rule F) (citing Matter of Complaint of Wild Florida Airboats, LLC, No. 16 Civ. 2207 (GJK),
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143099, 2017 WL 3891777, at * 3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2017)); In re
Narod, No. 13 Civ. 554, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97289, 2013 WL 3491088, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July
10, 2013) (entering default and exoneration where petitioner complied with Rule F).
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Petitioner’s motion for default
judgment and exoneration be granted.
OBJECTIONS
Case 2:25-cv-00707-RER-ARL Document 19 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
A copy of this Report and Recommendation is being electronically filed on the date
below. Counsel for Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation on
Defendants upon receipt and shall file proof of service with the Court. Any objections to this
Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of service.
Failure to file objections within this period waives the right to appeal the District Court’s Order.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Beverly v. Walker, 118 F.3d 900, 902 (2d Cir.
1997); Savoie v. Merchants Bank, 84 F.3d 52, 60 (2d Cir. 1996).
Dated: Central Islip, New York
January 8, 2026 	______/s/_______________
ARLENE R. LINDSAY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00707-RER-ARL Document 19 Filed 01/08/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>